A group linked to Oxford University in the UK is advocating the legalization of infanticide arguing that the difference between a nine month old fetus and a new born baby is negligible. In the UK and Europe there is almost total acceptance of abortion and the pro-life opposition is negligible. It is a slippery slope from abortion as a right to infanticide as a necessity to euthanasia as a humane act. The article cites the statistic that 40% a Down's Syndrome babies go undetected in Europe despite pre-natal testing. The group from Oxford recommends that these babies be killed rather than be a burden to parents or society.
This the the face of the immediate future. Government health care systems in their quest to keep costs in line will have to decide where available funding is spent. A disabled child will be low of the priority list as well as the elderly and disabled who are suffering from Alzheimer's and other age related illnesses. The result of this type of analysis is that a secular and amoral utility theory will replace traditional Judeo-Christian concept of the sacredness of the human person. Any life not deemed as 'fully human' will be deemed as expendable.
Who defines 'fully human'? Is a homeless person, addicted and dependent upon charity, fully human?
You say that this can't happen? If you asked a group of people 50 years ago that in the future getting an abortion up to 9 months would not only be legal but also subsidized by the federal government, people would not believe you. It has been here for almost 40 years already.
When you legalize murder for any human being no one in society is safe. Welcome to the Brave New World of secular humanism.
The Case For Infanticide
Cull the Herd
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
NY Times vs. Catholic Hospitals
The following editorial from today's New York Times reveals the muddled thinking of our elites. The Times recommends blocking mergers of Catholic hospitals with secular institution since the mergers will block access to reproductive services......abortion. If it were up to the editorial writers of the Times, Catholic hospitals would be forced to provide these immoral services since they receive most of their revenue from government and insurance programs and not from the Catholic bishops.
These left wing bigots hate religious freedom but love to impose other types of progressive 'freedoms' such gay marriage and other secularizing nonsense.
Women's Health Care at Risk
A wave of mergers between Roman Catholic and secular hospitals is threatening to deprive women in many areas of the country of ready access to important reproductive services. Catholic hospitals that merge or form partnerships with secular hospitals often try to impose religious restrictions against abortions, contraception and sterilization on the whole system.
These left wing bigots hate religious freedom but love to impose other types of progressive 'freedoms' such gay marriage and other secularizing nonsense.
Women's Health Care at Risk
A wave of mergers between Roman Catholic and secular hospitals is threatening to deprive women in many areas of the country of ready access to important reproductive services. Catholic hospitals that merge or form partnerships with secular hospitals often try to impose religious restrictions against abortions, contraception and sterilization on the whole system.
This can put an unacceptable burden on women, especially low-income women and those who live in smaller communities where there are fewer health care options. State regulators should closely examine such mergers and use whatever powers they have to block those that diminish women’s access to medical care.
Gov. Steve Beshear of Kentucky, for example, recently turned down a bid by a Catholic health system to merge with a public hospital that is the chief provider of indigent care in Louisville. He cited concerns about loss of control of a public asset and restrictions on reproductive services.
The nation’s 600 Catholic hospitals are an important part of the health care system. They treat one-sixth of all hospital patients, and are sometimes the only hospital in a small community. They receive most of their operating income from public insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid and from private insurers, not from the Catholic Church. They are free to deliver care in accord with their religious principles, but states and communities have an obligation to make sure that reproductive care remains available. This should be a central goal for government officials who have a role in approving such consolidations.
As Reed Abelson wrote in a recent report in The Times, these mergers are driven by shifts in health care economics. Some secular hospitals are struggling to survive and eager to be rescued by financially stronger institutions, which in many cases may be Catholic-affiliated. By one estimate, 20 mergers between Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals have been announced over the past three years and more can be expected.
The 2009 “Ethical and Religious Directives” issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops warns that Catholic institutions should avoid entering into partnerships “that would involve them in cooperation with the wrongdoing of other providers.” Catholic hospitals have refused to terminate pregnancies, provide contraceptive services, offer a standard treatment for ectopic pregnancies, or allow sterilization after caesarean sections (women seeking tubal ligations are then forced to have a second operation elsewhere, exposing them to additional risks).
In one case, the sole hospital in a rural area in southeastern Arizona announced in 2010 that it would partner with an out-of-state Catholic health system, and would immediately adhere to Catholic directives that forbid certain reproductive health services. As a result, a woman whose doctors wanted to terminate a pregnancy to save her life had to be sent 80 miles away for treatment. A coalition of residents, physicians and activists campaigned against the merger and it was called off before it was finalized.
Over the past 15 years, MergerWatch, an advocacy group based in New York City, has helped block or reverse 37 mergers and reached compromises in 22 others that saved at least some reproductive services. As mergers become more common, state and local leaders would be wise to block proposals that restrict health services.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Quick Hits
1. UK Government admits that it is out of money - too bad the US can't admit the same as Obama forces domestic socialism and foreign adventures at the same time. I have concluded that the current global economic system is broken. The global system vs the nationalist system is too large and complex to optimize labor supply with consumer demand. The US cannot be a service economy while shipping chunks of its manufacturing base overseas to sweatshop economies. It may work on the margins but the global economy cannot work as a stable economic system. This century will see the US workforce fall into the four broad categories: the unemployed, the marginally employed, professional class, and the rich. Our form of government is doomed if this is the case.
2. I watched highlights on ESPN this evening on the NBA All Star game. It reinforced my decision 30 years ago stop following the sport.
3. I watched Ron Paul interviewed by Piers Morgan on CNN tonight. His performance, despite about 10 minutes of insistent questioning of Paul about abortion and gay marriage, reinforced my belief that he is the best candidate to be the next US President.
4. What does Romney stand for? Every ad in his campaign is either a smear on his leading opponent or one that declares that his business experience would allow him to be qualified to be president. His conversion to conservatism within the last four years appears to be tailored to win the GOP nomination. He is a phony....better than Obama but anyone meets that qualification......but he will not change the direction of the country if elected.
5. Santorum has guts and walks the talk. However, I disagree with his strident neo-con views. He might win in Michigan on Tuesday and if he does I see a brokered GOP convention on the horizon. Once the establishment, in the back rooms, have a chance to install a candidate don't be too surprised to see another Bush running for president.
6. I noticed the Academy Awards were being shown tonight. That is all I did was notice but I would never watch a display of the 'bottom of the American barrel' to the rest of the world. However if you want to see the Deadly Seven Sins in action by all means watch the reruns. Is there a more ugly and obnoxious person than Harvey Weinstein?
7. I do not doubt that the latest tell all concerning a young lady and President Kennedy is true to a certain extent. We all know that Kennedy was a womanizer - 60 years ago many powerful men were so inclined - so he was not unique in that regard. Everyone assumes that all of the events are true but the major characters that are highlighted in the book reviews are all dead such as Dave Powers. In addition, this woman in her 70's recounts salacious incidents that also reflect badly on her character as well. What type of person and especially a woman does this type of thing? Obviously money is the motivation but it is a sign of the times that such unsubstantiated claims are taken to be the absolute truth without collaboration. There appears to be a concerted effort to denigrate this man almost a half a century after he died while other much worse characters such as Lyndon Johnson get a pass. The plutocracy hates Kennedy and in my mind these continued alleged exposures appear to be an exercise in psych ops to condition the American people to believe that he deserved to be shot. To use a NYC term......I smell a rat.
2. I watched highlights on ESPN this evening on the NBA All Star game. It reinforced my decision 30 years ago stop following the sport.
3. I watched Ron Paul interviewed by Piers Morgan on CNN tonight. His performance, despite about 10 minutes of insistent questioning of Paul about abortion and gay marriage, reinforced my belief that he is the best candidate to be the next US President.
4. What does Romney stand for? Every ad in his campaign is either a smear on his leading opponent or one that declares that his business experience would allow him to be qualified to be president. His conversion to conservatism within the last four years appears to be tailored to win the GOP nomination. He is a phony....better than Obama but anyone meets that qualification......but he will not change the direction of the country if elected.
5. Santorum has guts and walks the talk. However, I disagree with his strident neo-con views. He might win in Michigan on Tuesday and if he does I see a brokered GOP convention on the horizon. Once the establishment, in the back rooms, have a chance to install a candidate don't be too surprised to see another Bush running for president.
6. I noticed the Academy Awards were being shown tonight. That is all I did was notice but I would never watch a display of the 'bottom of the American barrel' to the rest of the world. However if you want to see the Deadly Seven Sins in action by all means watch the reruns. Is there a more ugly and obnoxious person than Harvey Weinstein?
7. I do not doubt that the latest tell all concerning a young lady and President Kennedy is true to a certain extent. We all know that Kennedy was a womanizer - 60 years ago many powerful men were so inclined - so he was not unique in that regard. Everyone assumes that all of the events are true but the major characters that are highlighted in the book reviews are all dead such as Dave Powers. In addition, this woman in her 70's recounts salacious incidents that also reflect badly on her character as well. What type of person and especially a woman does this type of thing? Obviously money is the motivation but it is a sign of the times that such unsubstantiated claims are taken to be the absolute truth without collaboration. There appears to be a concerted effort to denigrate this man almost a half a century after he died while other much worse characters such as Lyndon Johnson get a pass. The plutocracy hates Kennedy and in my mind these continued alleged exposures appear to be an exercise in psych ops to condition the American people to believe that he deserved to be shot. To use a NYC term......I smell a rat.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Gas Pump Blues
In a couple of months you will be pulling up to a gas station and paying close to $6.00 per gallon, if not higher. Why ten years after the US invaded Iran, you will wonder, are prices so high? Why are you paying double per gallon than you did in 2011?
You can blame the current administration, most notably the uber-hawk Hilary Clinton, but also Romney, Newt and Santorum for their macho protestations of bombing Iran off the map for the past few months. The national security establishment - both political parties - are hell bent for another war after draining the (borrowed) treasury of a trillion dollars in the past decade on failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now these experts in national building believe their war making credentials are so stellar that they are willing to slaughter thousands of Iranian women and children in carpet bombing to defeat a nation that so far has not invaded anyone in living memory.
We have been subjected to psychological conditioning to believe that war with Iran is inevitable and we will not wait for a 'provocation' from the mullahs but will preemptively take the initiative to neutralize their capabilities to build a nuclear weapon. We are told that we have the support of the Arab Gulf nations as well as (the provocateur) Israel who are not only compliant in any case but are essentially vassals of the US.
There is no justification for an attack on Iran. It runs against every principle of just war principles. We in the USA are not threatened by Iran no matter what the scaremongers and neo-cons media hacks dream up in their nightmarish scenarios.
Think about it. You are paying the price as a premium for every gallon as you fill up your tank. When Obama, Romney or Santorum tell you that they have your best interests at heart.......look at the price that you are paying..............
Despite, though likely because, Iran is ready to restart negotiations with the so-called P5+1 group (the five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) over its civilian nuclear program, belligerent rhetoric and sharply-worded political attacks from Israel and the United States have escalated.
You can blame the current administration, most notably the uber-hawk Hilary Clinton, but also Romney, Newt and Santorum for their macho protestations of bombing Iran off the map for the past few months. The national security establishment - both political parties - are hell bent for another war after draining the (borrowed) treasury of a trillion dollars in the past decade on failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now these experts in national building believe their war making credentials are so stellar that they are willing to slaughter thousands of Iranian women and children in carpet bombing to defeat a nation that so far has not invaded anyone in living memory.
We have been subjected to psychological conditioning to believe that war with Iran is inevitable and we will not wait for a 'provocation' from the mullahs but will preemptively take the initiative to neutralize their capabilities to build a nuclear weapon. We are told that we have the support of the Arab Gulf nations as well as (the provocateur) Israel who are not only compliant in any case but are essentially vassals of the US.
There is no justification for an attack on Iran. It runs against every principle of just war principles. We in the USA are not threatened by Iran no matter what the scaremongers and neo-cons media hacks dream up in their nightmarish scenarios.
Think about it. You are paying the price as a premium for every gallon as you fill up your tank. When Obama, Romney or Santorum tell you that they have your best interests at heart.......look at the price that you are paying..............
'SWIFT Boating' Iran: Economic War a Prelude to Military Attack By Tom Burghardt |
Global Research, February 20, 2012 |
Despite, though likely because, Iran is ready to restart negotiations with the so-called P5+1 group (the five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) over its civilian nuclear program, belligerent rhetoric and sharply-worded political attacks from Israel and the United States have escalated.
Indeed, as investigative journalist Robert Parry pointed out on the Consortium News web site, arch neocon Senator Joseph Lieberman "is leading a group of nearly one-third of the U.S. Senate urging that the red line on war with Iran be shifted from building a nuclear weapon to the vague notion of Iran having the 'capability' to build one."
"In other words," Parry warned, "the next preemptive war could be launched not against Iran for actually building a bomb or even trying to build a bomb but rather for simply having the skills that theoretically could be used sometime in the future to build a bomb. The 'red line' has been moved from some possible future development to arguably what already exists."
Last week Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili wrote European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, reiterating that the Islamic Republic's willingness to return to the negotiating table "is tied to the P5+1's constructive approach to Iran's initiatives," Press TV reported.
In that letter, Iran voiced their "readiness for dialogue on a spectrum of various issues which can provide ground for constructive and forward-looking cooperation," and that talks should be approached "on step-by-step principles and reciprocity."
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, flanked by Ashton at a Friday press conference that was pure Kabuki theater said "We think this is an important step, and we welcome the letter," The Washington Post reported.
"I'm cautious and I'm optimistic at the same time for this," Ashton told reporters after a gabfest with Clinton at the State Department.
"It also demonstrates the importance of the twin-track approach," Ashton told The New York Times, "referring to the international effort to intensify sanctions while leaving the door open for a diplomatic resolution of concerns about the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons."
In essence what Ashton is saying is: We have a gun pointed at your head and can pull the trigger at any time; better to capitulate now and give up your right to enrich uranium for your civilian program rather than run the risk of war.
Undeterred by implicit Western threats, Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi "has reiterated Tehran's determination to continue with its peaceful nuclear program, insisting on the nation's willingness to even deal with 'the worst-case scenario'," Press TV reported Sunday.
Speaking at a news conference Salehi asserted, "Since we believe that we are right, we do not have the slightest doubt in the pursuit of our nuclear program. Therefore, we plan to move ahead with vigor and confidence and we do not take much heed of [the West's] propaganda warfare. Even in the worse-case scenario, we remain prepared."
Lambasting the West's contradictory posture, hailing Iran's willingness to renew talks with the P5+1 nations on the one hand, while raising "baseless allegations" over Iran's civilian nuclear program on the other, Salehi observed that "they [the West] have an arrogant nature, they have not learned to engage in political interactions with prudent and humane manners."
The Foreign Minister however "expressed optimism" that "Western countries, as a whole will amend their policies towards Iran."
On Monday a team of IAEA inspectors arrived in Tehran, BBC News reported. Chief inspector Herman Nackaerts said their "highest priority" was to clarify the "possible military dimensions" of Iran's nuclear program.
Although the Agency had described their last visit in January as "positive," saying that Iran was "committed to resolving all outstanding issues," as in the case of Iraq a decade ago, an unnamed U.S. official told The New York Times that the meeting was "a disaster" that demonstrated Iranian "foot-dragging."
The IAEA's board of governors "is scheduled to convene on March 5 in Vienna, the same day on which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to give a speech in Washington at a meeting of the annual policy conference of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee," Haaretz disclosed.
Talk about coincidences!
'SWIFT-Boating' Iran
In her remarks last week, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that any resumption of talks "will have to be a sustained effort that can produce results." Translation: "Iran will give in to all our demands--or else."
The "or else" wasn't long in coming.
In fact on Friday, the same day that Ashton and Clinton expressed "cautious optimism" over a resumption of P5+1 talks, the Brussels-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT network, "bowed to international pressure," Reuters reported, "and said it was ready to block Iranian banks from using its network to transfer money."
So much for "confidence building" measures ahead of negotiations!
Washington's latest move to strangle the Iranian economy, follow efforts by the U.S. and EU to enact crippling sanctions that would punish countries and financial institutions if they do not cut-off purchases of Iranian oil.
However, the Associated Press reported last week, "American attempts to get major Asian importers of Iranian oil to rein in their purchases are faltering as allies South Korea and Japan give U.S. officials a polite brushoff."
"Emerging giants India and China may even increase their purchases," AP disclosed.
Indeed, as a close ally of Tehran "China has also dug its heels in--in fact, far deeper than either South Korea or Japan. Beijing turned a blind eye to efforts by American Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to get it to cut back on Iranian imports during a January visit."
"Earlier this month," AP reported, "the Communist Party newspaper People's Daily described Western efforts to pressure Iran with an oil embargo as 'casting a shadow over the global economy'."
In this light, the move to cut-off Iranian banks from the SWIFT network will have far-reaching ramifications and will surely intensify Washington's geopolitical machinations targeting their Asian capitalist rivals.
In an email published by Reuters, the private company declared that "SWIFT stands ready to act and discontinue its services to sanctioned Iranian financial institutions as soon as it has clarity on EU legislation currently being drafted."
The Iranian response quickly followed the announcement. Last week, Iran said it would "immediately" order a preemptive embargo of crude oil exports to six recession-hit European nations--Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, France and the Netherlands.
"It took virtually no time for Iran's Oil Ministry and then the Foreign Ministry to deny it," Asia Times Online analyst Pepe Escobar wrote.
"But only the deaf, dumb and blind wouldn't understand the message; blowback for the ridiculously counter-productive European sanctions/oil embargo package will only plunge vast swathes of Europe further into deep economic pain," Escobar observed.
Making good on a pledge approved by Parliament earlier this month, the Iranian Oil Ministry announced it has cut oil exports "to British and French firms in line with the decision to end crude exports to six European states," Press TV disclosed Sunday.
Oil Ministry spokesperson Alireza Nikzad-Rahbar said that Iran would have no problem exporting and selling crude oil to its customers.
"We have our own oil customers and replacements for these [British and French] companies have already been chosen and we will sell the crude oil to new customers instead of the British and French companies," Nikzad-Rahbar averred.
On Monday, Iran's Deputy Oil Minister Ahmad Qalebani "hinted at the possibility of a halt in oil exports to Spain, the Netherlands, Greece, Germany, Italy and Portugal," Press TV disclosed.
"Undoubtedly if the hostile actions of certain European countries continue, oil exports to these countries will be stopped," Qalebani said.
Call it round two of a new tit-for-tat oil war where almost everyone loses.
As financial jackals and capitalist hyenas lusting after publicly-owned assets in cash-strapped EU states such as Greece, Italy and Spain move in for the kill, Washington's one-two punch against Iran and recession-hammered EU workers will have have the salutary effect of hastening "reform," i.e., the immiseration of millions of proletarians "transitioning" to their new role as low-paid wage slaves in a global order lorded over by Wall Street and the City of London.
In a Press TV interview, two Italian lawmakers voiced "their serious concern about Tehran halting oil exports to some European states."
Democratic Party Senator Francesco Ferrante told the Iranian news outlet that "Rome is currently importing a great deal of its needed oil from Iran."
"As a result, Italy will suffer more than other countries from the decision of cutting oil supplies to European states taken by the Iranian government," he added.
Ferrante said that "Italians' everyday lives will be affected as fuel prices are likely to go up [as a result of Iran oil cut]. The [oil] cut will also have negative consequences on Italian companies."
Another senator, Stefano Saglia from Italy's People of Liberty Party, told Press TV: "Without a doubt, Italy is the European country that will be damaged the most from this situation as Iran and Italy have always been close business partners."
And with a massive strike wave earlier this month against harsh austerity measures imposed on Italy's combative working class by the unelected government of Prime Minister Mario Monti, the European Chairman of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission and a leading member of the shadowy Bilderberg Group, an Iranian oil boycott could send the Italian economy over the cliff.
As a result of escalating tensions, Forbes reported on Friday that the price of crude oil "has gone on a nice rally in February and a perfect storm has brewed that promises to take it higher."
"Markets have underestimated how tight global oil markets truly are," Forbes disclosed. So much for U.S. fantasies that Saudi Arabia or the Gulf monarchies will make up any shortfalls that arise from removing Iranian oil from international markets.
"Supply-side issues, particularly the problems around Iran, and demand-side issues, especially very strong Asian and Chinese demand, will help take prices higher. A weak U.S. dollar adds a final drop that could take U.S. prices to $118 a barrel by the fourth quarter of 2012, according to Barclays."
"West Texas Intermediate contracts for March delivery, currently trading at $103.52 a barrel, have gained on eight of the last ten trading days while Brent, the international benchmark, recorded six positive sessions over the same time frame and was at $119.62 as of 4:20PM in New York on Friday," Forbes reported.
Following Monday's report that Iran may be poised to halt oil shipments to additional EU states, "crude for March delivery rose as much as $2.20 to $105.44 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the highest intraday price since May 5," Bloomberg News reported.
"The more actively traded April contract gained $1.64 to $105.45. Prices increased 4.6 percent last week and are up 6.1 percent so far this year." Additionally, "Brent oil for April settlement on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange climbed as much as $1.57, or 1.3 percent, to $121.15 a barrel.
According to Christopher Bellew, "a senior broker at Jefferies Bache Ltd. in London, who correctly predicted last week that the price of Brent crude would advance to $120 a barrel," increasing tensions in the Persian Gulf "continues to support prices," Bloomberg noted.
Commenting on the deteriorating situation, NusConsulting Group analyst Richard Soultanian told Forbes that "Market prices currently reflect a significant risk premia for the potential of a supply disruption from a geopolitical event," i.e., a "preemptive" attack on Iran. "However, the amount of risk premia currently included does not fully account for an actual event/supply disruption."
In plain English, should a U.S./Israeli/NATO attack force Iran's hand into closing the strategic energy chokepoint, the Strait of Hormuz, as a defensive response to Western aggression, global energy prices will skyrocket and quickly wreck havoc on recession-plagued capitalist economies.
According to Barclay analysts, "Our view remains that policy and circumstances are now both running fast enough for policy accidents and unintended consequences to play a role. In other words, in our view, the probability of the situation becoming 'hot' in some way that affects the oil market is now significant and perhaps rising, in a way which makes the maintenance of too entrenched a short position in the market increasingly difficult."
Will the SWIFT cut-off work? "Hardly," according to Asia Times. "It will certainly represent more devastation unleashed over 'the Iranian people'--the vague entity of choice against which the US has 'no quarrel.' More than 40 Iranian banks use SWIFT to process financial transactions, and Iranians use it like everybody else in a globalized economy."
However, Pepe Escobar writes, "it will drag SWIFT's carefully maintained reputation for trust and neutrality through the mud; imagine other member countries' reaction to the fact they can also be totally marginalized according to the US's whims."
The "message" was delivered to the Europeans "Mafia-style" Escobar averred, "in person" by David Cohen, U.S. Treasury Department Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.
On Friday Cohen told The Washington Post that cutting-off Iranian access to SWIFT "would build on earlier U.S. efforts to exclude Iranian banks from international commerce."
"It's another good turn of the screw," Cohen said.
Really?
"If the Washington/Tel Aviv-promoted hysteria is already at fever pitch," Asia Times warned, "wait for March 20, when the Iranian oil bourse will start trading oil in other currencies apart from the US dollar, heralding the arrival of a new oil marker to be denominated in euro, yen, yuan, rupee or a basket of currencies."
"That may be the straw to break the American camel's back."
Sometime in March, the USS Enterprise, along with a large contingent of U.S. Marines will join two other aircraft carrier battle groups and NATO warships and enter waters off Iran's coast.
Earlier this month, the Enterprise and NATO military units, including forces from Britain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand concluded maneuvers, including large-scale amphibious landings against an unnamed "hostile power."
The menacing tone of U.S. rhetoric was matched by the deployment of American firepower. The Associated Press reported last week that U.S. Fifth Fleet Commander, Vice Admiral Mark Fox said that the Navy has "built a wide range of potential options to give the president" and is "ready today" to confront any hostile action by Tehran.
"We've developed very precise and lethal weapons that are very effective, and we're prepared," AP reported. "We're just ready for any contingency."
As the World Socialist Web Site recently pointed out, what Fox and other Pentagon big wigs have "outlined is the classic scenario for a US provocation that could provide the pretext for war--the appearance of 'Iranian' mines, an inflammatory media campaign and a US attack on Iranian naval assets that rapidly escalates into all-out conflict."
"The US has a history of manufacturing naval episodes to serve as a casus belli," Peter Symonds warned. "The notorious Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, in which Vietnamese PT boats allegedly attacked a US destroyer, was exploited to obtain congressional approval for a massive US military intervention in Indochina."
Today, with the U.S. Congress and the Obama administration marching in "lockstep" with Israel as it plans to launch a "preemptive" war of aggression against Iran, and as the administration allies itself, once again, with the Afghan-Arab database of disposable Western intelligence assets, also known as Al Qaeda, in its "regime change" program targeting Iran's ally, Syria, a major global conflict is a provocation away.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Women in Combat
At the GOP debate last night it appears all the candidates gave grudging approval to the concept of women in combat. Ron Paul even brought up the scenario of a return to the draft with women being compelled like men to serve. And this group of middle aged men are called 'conservatives'?
Drafting women to serve in the front lines of the military goes contrary to the whole history of western civilization. Some people will say.....look at Israeli women, Viet Cong women, women in the French resistance, etc. These are exceptions to the rule and more driven by desperation and circumstance rather than design. Think of the armies of Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, Saladin, Napoleon or the wars of the twentieth century. Even the evil and dastardly Hitler did not conscript women in the final days of the war - this crazed and immoral person still a residual respect for womanhood.
It is apparent that the virus of radical feminism has now infected society so much that we are not only willing to kill babies and devalue motherhood as a disease of sorts but we are willing to sacrifice our daughters to the brutality and carnage of war. No human being is ready to face the horrors of combat, male or female, but psychologically men can emotionally distance themselves from the carnage and dehumanization much better than women who are 'wired' much differently....for the better I might add. This is not to denigrate women in any way but to realize that in hand to hand combat a regiment of men against a regiment of women is no contest. Men have a way of distancing themselves emotionally, some more than others, but women are much more emotionally attached in a much different way. Read any book.....even the Men are from Mars and Women from Venus..and the truth will hit you in the face. In former ages what I am writing was considered common sense but that is obviously in short supply in our radical age.
The devaluation of the concept of womanhood is another sign of the decline of our former Christian culture. The elitists who want to revolutionize our society have been successful is mainstreaming such former radical ideas as: legalized abortion; women priests; euthanasia; gay marriage; no fault divorce; affirmative action; and preventive war. Now that want us to sacrifice our daughters on the altars of Mars.
If the government tries to conscript any of my four daughters I will resist with every fiber of my being. Any candidate for any office who supports such nonsense will not get my vote.
Drafting women to serve in the front lines of the military goes contrary to the whole history of western civilization. Some people will say.....look at Israeli women, Viet Cong women, women in the French resistance, etc. These are exceptions to the rule and more driven by desperation and circumstance rather than design. Think of the armies of Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, Saladin, Napoleon or the wars of the twentieth century. Even the evil and dastardly Hitler did not conscript women in the final days of the war - this crazed and immoral person still a residual respect for womanhood.
It is apparent that the virus of radical feminism has now infected society so much that we are not only willing to kill babies and devalue motherhood as a disease of sorts but we are willing to sacrifice our daughters to the brutality and carnage of war. No human being is ready to face the horrors of combat, male or female, but psychologically men can emotionally distance themselves from the carnage and dehumanization much better than women who are 'wired' much differently....for the better I might add. This is not to denigrate women in any way but to realize that in hand to hand combat a regiment of men against a regiment of women is no contest. Men have a way of distancing themselves emotionally, some more than others, but women are much more emotionally attached in a much different way. Read any book.....even the Men are from Mars and Women from Venus..and the truth will hit you in the face. In former ages what I am writing was considered common sense but that is obviously in short supply in our radical age.
The devaluation of the concept of womanhood is another sign of the decline of our former Christian culture. The elitists who want to revolutionize our society have been successful is mainstreaming such former radical ideas as: legalized abortion; women priests; euthanasia; gay marriage; no fault divorce; affirmative action; and preventive war. Now that want us to sacrifice our daughters on the altars of Mars.
If the government tries to conscript any of my four daughters I will resist with every fiber of my being. Any candidate for any office who supports such nonsense will not get my vote.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Wise Advice
Pat Buchanan may have been terminated at MSNBC but he is still alive and kicking providing excellent analysis and sage advice on RT media. I find it highly ironic that one of America's 'coldest' warriors when he was a presidential adviser for Presidents Nixon and Reagan is featured on the Russian RT broadcast and probably shares more judgments in common with Putin rather than Obama.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Obama's Ecumenism
It is hard to imagine another issue that would bring all these different clergyman together agreeing on a political issue. However, where is the representative of Islam?
Obama finally bringing different faiths together attacking them all
Obama finally bringing different faiths together attacking them all
Monday, February 20, 2012
The Greatest US President
The greatest president of the USA was the first one, George Washington. The only competitor for this title would be Lincoln but it is difficult to consider him in the Washington category considering that the Great Emancipator presided over a national bloodbath that took the lives of hundreds of thousands. His greatness has much to do with his assassination immediately at the end of the war. His legacy still divides historians who can paint two different pictures of the man with the same facts! All other near great presidents, the two Roosevelt's and Andrew Jackson simply do not measure up to the uniqueness of Washington who created the office of the Presidency.
To use a sport's analogy, there is no baseball player of the 20th century who comes close to the greatness of Babe Ruth. It can be similarly said of George Washington, arguably the greatest man of his age. The following essay captures why he is considered the greatest
I have also attached Washington's Farewell Address - an excellent summary of the thinking of the American Founders especially in the conduct of foreign affairs.
| B |
ecause in the eighteenth century it was true. George Washington earned the respect of his former enemy by doing something exceedingly rare in history: When he had the chance to increase personal power, he decreased it -- not once, not twice, but repeatedly.
During the American Revolution, Washington put service before self. His personal example was his greatest gift to the nation. It has often been said the "Father of our country" was less eloquent than Jefferson; less educated than Madison; less experienced than Franklin; less talented than Hamilton. Yet all these leaders looked to Washington to lead them because they trusted him with power. He did not need power.
Washington knew that the bold American experiment in self government under the rule of law could survive only if leaders exercised self restraint and accepted institutional limits on executive power. He believed leading virtuously was more important than anything he could write or say. This is why Washington has been compared to two great republicans of Ancient Rome -- Cincinnatus, who traded his sword for a plow, and Cato the Younger, who died defending the republic against the tyranny of Julius Caesar.
Consider all the times Washington put service before self.
In 1775 when he accepted command of the Continental Army, he promised Congress he would resign his commission when the war was over. Once the British withdrew, he was true to his word. In a moving scene before Congress meeting in Annapolis on December 23, 1783, Washington pledged loyalty to the civilian government he had served. The General returned his commission to Congress and was once again simply George Washington, Esq. He thereby established the principle that our nation's military would always be under civilian rule.
Earlier in the 1780s, Washington had been approached twice by the officers who promised their support if he decided to seize civilian power. In one famous incident in 1782, Col. Lewis Nicola wrote a letter urging Washington to overthrow Congress and become America's king. The commanding general scolded Nicola the very same day.
Then in 1783, Washington caught wind of officers wanting to stage a coup d'état against Congress. The so-called Newburgh Conspirators were frustrated that Congress was not paying them what had been promised when the nation desperately needed their sacrifice. Washington would not be moved. On the Ides of March -- a date rich in irony for its association with the tyranny and assassination of Julius Caesar -- he called the men together and sternly reprimanded them for losing faith in the idea of America. The new nation had a chance to succeed only if its leaders and military adhered to the rule of law. This was the non-negotiable foundation of a free republic.
When King George III heard Washington would resign his commission to a powerless Congress, he told the painter Benjamin West: "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
Washington returned home to Mount Vernon on Christmas Eve 1783. Like Cincinnatus, he put down his sword and took up his plow. This simple act made him the most trusted man in America. A few years later, delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 selected him to preside over their gathering, knowing he would not abuse his position to aggrandize himself. And a grateful nation unanimously elected him president of the United States in 1789 and again in 1792, because they knew he would devote all his energies to serving the new nation.
Washington, when convinced that he had done all he could to help the country, retired after two terms as president. True to principle, he relinquished the power that was his for the taking. It was an example of service to the republic, to the res publica, to our valued public things as a nation. George Washington's example of selfless leadership would inspire Americans and the world to this day.
During the American Revolution, Washington put service before self. His personal example was his greatest gift to the nation. It has often been said the "Father of our country" was less eloquent than Jefferson; less educated than Madison; less experienced than Franklin; less talented than Hamilton. Yet all these leaders looked to Washington to lead them because they trusted him with power. He did not need power.
Washington knew that the bold American experiment in self government under the rule of law could survive only if leaders exercised self restraint and accepted institutional limits on executive power. He believed leading virtuously was more important than anything he could write or say. This is why Washington has been compared to two great republicans of Ancient Rome -- Cincinnatus, who traded his sword for a plow, and Cato the Younger, who died defending the republic against the tyranny of Julius Caesar.
Consider all the times Washington put service before self.
In 1775 when he accepted command of the Continental Army, he promised Congress he would resign his commission when the war was over. Once the British withdrew, he was true to his word. In a moving scene before Congress meeting in Annapolis on December 23, 1783, Washington pledged loyalty to the civilian government he had served. The General returned his commission to Congress and was once again simply George Washington, Esq. He thereby established the principle that our nation's military would always be under civilian rule.
Earlier in the 1780s, Washington had been approached twice by the officers who promised their support if he decided to seize civilian power. In one famous incident in 1782, Col. Lewis Nicola wrote a letter urging Washington to overthrow Congress and become America's king. The commanding general scolded Nicola the very same day.
Then in 1783, Washington caught wind of officers wanting to stage a coup d'état against Congress. The so-called Newburgh Conspirators were frustrated that Congress was not paying them what had been promised when the nation desperately needed their sacrifice. Washington would not be moved. On the Ides of March -- a date rich in irony for its association with the tyranny and assassination of Julius Caesar -- he called the men together and sternly reprimanded them for losing faith in the idea of America. The new nation had a chance to succeed only if its leaders and military adhered to the rule of law. This was the non-negotiable foundation of a free republic.
When King George III heard Washington would resign his commission to a powerless Congress, he told the painter Benjamin West: "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
Washington returned home to Mount Vernon on Christmas Eve 1783. Like Cincinnatus, he put down his sword and took up his plow. This simple act made him the most trusted man in America. A few years later, delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 selected him to preside over their gathering, knowing he would not abuse his position to aggrandize himself. And a grateful nation unanimously elected him president of the United States in 1789 and again in 1792, because they knew he would devote all his energies to serving the new nation.
Washington, when convinced that he had done all he could to help the country, retired after two terms as president. True to principle, he relinquished the power that was his for the taking. It was an example of service to the republic, to the res publica, to our valued public things as a nation. George Washington's example of selfless leadership would inspire Americans and the world to this day.
Washington's Farewell Address, 1796
Friends and Citizens:
The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.
I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.
The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.
I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.
The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.
In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.
Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.
Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.
The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.
While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.
These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?
To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.
As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.
How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.
In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.
After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.
The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.
The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.
The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.
Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.
Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Events Unfolding
The Franciscan Friars of the Renewal are a new religious order (an offshoot of the Capuchin Franciscans) who were founded in NYC twenty five years ago. One of its founders is Fr. Andrew Apostoli along with Fr. Benedict Groeschel, a well known author and television preacher. The following article concerns the Fatima revelations as well as the events and prophecies that have unfolded in the last 95 years since the apparitions.
The Virgin Mary predicted that "an evil will begin in Russia, and will spread its errors around the world,” Fr Apostoli adds, “Those errors – an atheistic form of government, life, and society – have come upon us now, in the form of secularism, and the attack on life, the family, and religious freedom.”
We have lived in the USA for the past two or three generations blissfully pursuing the American Dream while ignoring the rising tide of atheism and secularism around the world. When communism in the form of the totalitarian Russian system collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, we declared victory not realizing that that the pernicious doctrines of Marx, Freud and Darwin had created a toxic philosophy that permeated every society of earth. This cancerous growth fuels many movements - sexual liberation, abortion rights, socialism, atheism, hedonism, etc. - all of which are undermining what is left of the old Christian civilization.
While coexisting with religion over the past hundred years, this coalition of movements have emerged 'from the closet' and are attacking Catholicism in particular and religion in general. Having captured the federal government with the acceptance of its secular agenda, it now has a president with the support of the media and pop culture, to aggressively prosecute those who oppose its anti-Life and pro-Death agenda.
Forty years ago, Gary Allen wrote a book called "None Dare Call it a Conspiracy". People laughed at the time ........they are not now.
On Fatima anniversary, Fr. Apostoli sees atheism overtaking the West
The author of an exhaustive study on the Virgin Mary's 1917 appearances in Portugal says her words are being fulfilled by the rise of aggressive secularism and loss of religious freedom in the West.
“Mary, as I see it, pointed out at Fatima that these things were going to happen,” said Fr. Andrew Apostoli, a Franciscan Friar of the Renewal and the author of “Fatima For Today” (Ignatius Press, $19.95), in an interview one day before the 94th anniversary of the last apparition in the Portuguese city.
“She said that an evil will begin in Russia, and will spread its errors around the world,” Fr. Apostoli noted, recalling Mary's words in 1917.
“Those errors – an atheistic form of government, life, and society – have come upon us now, in the form of secularism, and the attack on life, the family, and religious freedom.”
Mary's appearance on October 13, 1917, included one of the most dramatic public miracles of modern times, a well-documented event known today as the “Miracle of the Sun.” On that day, 70,000 people watched as the sun appeared to make three circles and “dance” in the sky in a zig-zag pattern.
Five months before, the mother of Christ had first appeared to three children to make a series of requests and predictions about prayer, penance, war and peace. The solar miracle accompanied her last appearance, for the benefit of those in doubt.
The Virgin also spoke of suffering for the Church and an assault on the Pope. Blessed John Paul II, who was wounded by an assassin in 1981, later performed a public consecration of the world that many people, including Fr. Apostoli, say fulfilled Mary's request for the Pope to consecrate Russia to her.
Fr. Apostoli told EWTN News that Bl. John Paul II repeatedly stressed the importance of the message of Fatima – a call to conversion, prayer, and penance – during his pontificate, as he saw the Church entering a “life-and-death struggle” involving billions of souls.
“In 1976, even before he became the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II stated that the Catholic Church is involved in the greatest spiritual struggle of her 2,000 year history,” Fr. Apostoli recalled.
“And he said that what's at stake is not one nation, or one facet of life, but the entire Christian culture is at stake in this struggle. It's a struggle between the Gospel and the anti-Gospel, between the Church and the anti-Church.”
The Franciscan priest noted that the recently-beatified Pope continued to speak of this struggle between “truth and anti-truth” after his election – particularly after the attempt on his life, which came on the May 13 anniversary of Mary's first appearance in Fatima.
“Before he made the consecration in 1984,” Fr. Apostoli recalled, “he made the statement that Fatima is more important today, than it was in 1917.”
In the time since that papal pronouncement, virtually every historically Catholic country in Western Europe has embraced an attitude of indifference or hostility to religion. Today, several of those traditional Catholic homelands, including Portugal, appear headed for financial and demographic ruin.
“I was talking about somebody who's into finances, when I was over in Europe,” Fr. Apostoli recalled. “He told me it's unavoidable – there's going to be a great crisis, financially.”
Fr. Apostoli recently returned from Ireland, where a million people waited to see Bl. John Paul II during his visit in 1979. The author of “Fatima for Today” said that during his own recent trip, “one lady there even told me that Ireland's probably the most anti-Catholic country in the world now.”
In Europe, and increasingly the U.S., the Fatima expert sees a spread of the “errors” that seized Russia in 1917, especially atheism.
Even the anti-Christian French Revolution had publicly acknowledged a “Supreme Being,” whereas Russian Communism went further by making atheism state policy.
The United States, Fr. Apostoli said, “would never have accepted communism if it had that label on it, directly. America would have opposed that.”
“But that's being broken down, and we're gradually getting many things that were a part of communism.”
“Pope Benedict has said that a wind has come over Western Europe, over North America, and has brought a darkness which prevents people from being able to tell right from wrong, truth from distortions,” Fr. Apostoli observed.
“We don't have the secret police, coming into our houses and arresting us for saying the Rosary – we don't have that. But gradually, all of our religious rights are being taken away. Things that we support as part of the moral teaching of Christ are being suppressed, and things are being forced upon us.”
“They'll say, 'Oh, you can worship any way you want, but don't bring it into the public square. Leave it in church on Sunday, and don't bring it to work on Monday. Don't bring it into society.'”
“That, to me, is a sign of communism.”
U.S. bishops' conference president Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, the local bishop of Fr. Apostoli's own community, agrees with the friar about the spread of aggressive secularism.
The archbishop and the rest of the bishops’ conference recently established a national committee to monitor threats to religious freedom, saying it was “increasingly and in unprecedented ways under assault in America.”
Archbishop Dolan cited several alarming cases in his letter establishing the committee – including the proposed federal contraception mandate, the Obama administration's moves toward redefining marriage, and a Justice Department attack on churches' self government in the Supreme Court.
“In some countries, even to speak against homosexuality will become a 'hate crime,'” Fr. Apostoli predicted. “It's not a hate crime, it's speaking about what we believe is right and wrong. But we're going to be muzzled by that.”
Fr. Apostoli noted that as official atheism grows, so does the importance of Our Lady of Fatima's message – which involves daily prayer of the Rosary, personal sanctification, reparation for offenses against God, and the practice of attending Mass on the first Saturday of five consecutive months.
“This message is not over,” Fr. Apostoli stated. “Our Lady said that the Rosary can stop wars, and can bring world peace. We have to do what she said, and live good lives.”
“There's no other plan from Heaven that's so specific, for what we're going through now. She spelled it out. Prayer, penance, the 'First Five Saturdays' devotion – and live a good, holy life. That's the answer.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





